Asked to respond [to criticism by fellow Democrats], she paused a moment, smiled and said, “I’m just taking it all in.”

“I’ve noticed in the last few days that a lot of the other campaigns have been using my name a lot,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I’m here because I think we need to change America; it’s not to get into fights with Democrats.”

“For 15 years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I’ve come out stronger, so if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl.”

The Times and just about all of MSM have downplayed girl Hillary's self-description or ignored it altogether.

We're not seeing anything like what we'd be seeing if a woman seeking the Republican presidential nomination had told a similiar audience, "I'm your girl."

There's been no “firestorm of criticism” from feminists, the Dixie Chicks, and Sen. Ted Kennedy. Nor have we read NYT and LAT editorials expressing "shock" and telling us "it's small comfort to learn that the candidate now says she didn't really mean to devalue women and set back the progress they've made during the last 100 years."

Instead we're getting things such as a post at a NY Times blog where Kathleen Q. Seelye, a Times reporter, offers "analysis" which begins:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably the only person on the planet who could get away with calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a girl.

This is, after all, someone who has labored assiduously to make herself acceptable as the first woman commander-in-chief. And what a gender-bending ride it has been. From not using her husband’s last name to using it. From not standing by her man to standing by her man. And now becoming the first woman with a real shot at breaking what she calls the ultimate glass ceiling — and using her gender to do it.

So you see, according to Seelye, there’s no “firestorm” when Hillary does it because -- well --she’s Hillary.

And I'd say because she's a Democrat although Seelye doesn't.

Seelye does a lot more by way of fluffing up for Clinton including:

At 59, Senator Clinton is at the vanguard of the baby boom, which has been arguing about feminism for most of her adult life. Is she or isn’t she? Or is she carving out a third way? Is a “girl” up to taking on the right-wing machine?

When she spoke last night, she was standing at Soldier Field. It was a nostalgic locale that prompted her to reminisce: “You know, my late father was a fanatic Bears fan and the idea that any of his children would be on the 10-yard line in Soldier Field is an extraordinary accomplishment.”

Maybe thinking of those days conjured up her girlhood. Can’t she let her hair down for a minute?

Well, let's leave girl Hillary and move on.

My biggest laugh so far on the whole thing was provided by columnist Richard Collins. Here's his tongue-in-cheek reaction:

Your "girl?"

First of all, that had to sting Senator Edwards. Hasn't his entire campaign been about being the Democrat's girl? Doesn't the candidate with the best hair win?

Edwards: Hair today and hair at the Democratic convention, but not there on the party's '08 ticket.

Buckley once said that given a choice between being governed by the Harvard faculty or a Congress composed of the first 500 people listed in the Boston phone directory, he'd opt for the phone directory.

He received a letter from an irate National Review reader telling him in great detail what a miserable editor he was. The letter ended with "cancel my subscription."

Buckley wrote back that he certainly had shortcomings and would try to do better. But as for canceling the subscription, he told the reader, "Dammit, cancel it yourself."

When asked why Robert Kennedy was refusing to appear on his Firing Line interview program, Buckley dryly countered with "Why does baloney resist the meat grinder?"

A National Review editorial comment began: "The attempted assassination of Sukarno last week had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno."

Friday, August 10, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Yesterday’s post related Randolph Churchill’s recollection of a night spent gambling with his father at the Cannes Casino. They left the casino at five in the morning and couldn’t find a cab back to their hotel.

Churchill said they’d walk back to the hotel. He told Randolph it was “only four or five miles.” So off they went.

The year was 1935 and Churchill was sixty-one.

I think it’s quite something when a sixty-one year old who’s been up all night starts off on such a walk at five in the morning.

It’s also a reminder of something I haven’t said here recently but which bears repeating: Churchill possessed enormous physical energy right up to the last years of his life.

As a youth he was a golfer, played tennis, rode horses and swam in rough, tidal Channel waters.

He played polo until he was fifty-one. His principal bodyguard during WW II, Inspector Walter Thompson, recalled that Churchill regularly walked for exercise, sometimes even during the blackouts.

When we think of all Churchill did during WW II and after, it’s worth remembering that at the time he became Prime Minister in 1940, he was eligible for a government old age pension.

Moving on.

I don’t know whether any of you live in Chapel Hill, NC but there’s something called a “Power Triathlon” being held there tomorrow.

If you’re thinking of entering, there’s good news: temperatures here have dropped from 104 to 93 degrees.

After the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the president says, Congress needs to adjust its spending priorities

Yep. A bridge collapses in Minneapolis, our national transportation infrastructure is heading to hell in a hand basket, and it’s all because of Bush. Except that folks in Minnesota at least don’t seem to think raising taxes is the best way forward. For some objective, fact-based reporting on the Minneapolis bridge collapse, go here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nice work, Mike, but be ready.

The N&O folks who control news reporting will tell you they treat President Bush just as fairly as they treat white male Duke students.

And when they say that, that's one time they're telling the truth.

The same N&O editors producing stories now about Bush and bridges were not too long ago assuring readers Crystal Mangum was a victim who'd endured a night of sexual violence.

That's a scary thought, isn't it?

But it helps explain those Pew results.Message to JiinC readers: I'll be posting again on the Pew Research findings, including saying I think Pew spun their own numbers to make their liberal/leftist MSM allies look less bad than the numbers suggest.

Regular visitors know I’ve asked news organizations and individual journalists to provide us news reports with pictures or videotapes of the bathroom that Crystal Mangum claimed was the place where she struggled to fight off three Duke lacrosse players who brutally beat, strangled and gang-raped her for thirty minutes.I’ve explained here why it’s important that happen.

What follows is my latest effort to persuade a news executive to make it happen.

“District Attorney Mike Nifong, the only person who can explain his office's decisions on the case, cut off interviews early last week, blaming an overload of requests.

That's not just a problem for reporters. It's keeping information away from people who live in this community.

Fortunately, Duke and Durham aren't territory that can be cordoned off. Some faculty, students and community members have spoken for themselves.

Journalism's purpose is to inform communities about important issues. The Duke story matters here, to Durham and the greater Triangle. It also matters to Duke's alumni nationally and others concerned about college behavior, race and class.

I was relieved, Melanie, when DA Nifong’s cut off interviews, but otherwise I agree with everything else you say.

Regarding “keeping information away from people,” why did the N&O decide not to publish any photos of the bathroom which Crystal Mangum claimed was the scene of her brutal thirty minute beating and gang-rape by three white Duke students?

On April 2 the N&O published the face photos and names of 43 of the 46 white members of the Duke lacrosse team after Duke said it had removed those photos from GoDuke.com because of fears for the players’ safety.

The N&O also published a photo of the Duke students entering the Durham Police building for DNA testing. They were walking single file and had covered their heads with sweaters and jackets upon advice of adults who, like Duke, feared for their safety once they were photo ID’ed by certain people and groups.

N&O reporter Joe Neff has says the photo reminded him of a Mafia perp walk. Many people had the same reaction.

The N&O obviously believed both photos contained “information” it didn’t want to keep “away from people who live in this community.”

But you’ve never published a photo of the bathroom in which the woman you said was “the victim” claimed she she was brutally beaten, strangled and gang-raped by three white male Duke students for thirty minutes.

Surely a photo, preferably one showing four adults in the bathroom if it’s possible for them to all squeeze in at the same time, would provide information that shouldn’t be kept “away from people who live in this community,” and which you should have provided us with last March.

The N&O’s failure to date to publish a single informative photo of that bathroom leads any reasonable person to wonder just why you don’t want N&O readers to see it.

Readers Note: Below is a letter which appeared today in the Durham Herald Sun under the lead, Check Duke’s numbers. It’s followed by a double star line after which I offer some commentary.

John_______________________________________________________

To the editor:

In a recent story, The Herald-Sun relied on a Duke University press release touting a record $380 million in gifts.

This total must be examined carefully in light of the pressing need of President Richard Brodhead and his administration to proclaim good news in order to survive their handling of the lacrosse debacle.

Exactly half of the increase over the previous year came from an installment payment by The Duke Endowment toward its one-time pledge of $75 million for scholarships. With this surge omitted, the increase did little more than cover inflation.

When measured against the university's budget growth, far exceeding inflation, the impact of the gifts actually diminished. The news release boasted about Brodhead's Financial Aid Initiative.

The claim that more than 75 percent has been pledged is distorted by over-subscription in areas like athletic scholarships. The undisclosed secret: only half of the money for need-based undergraduate aid is in sight, which puts the big goal of the initiative in jeopardy.

Finally there's clever, concealing wording about the Alumni Annual Fund. For 31 consecutive years news releases said the fund "exceeded its goal." This year, the Annual Fund merely "exceeded its previous year's total" with parts like the Law School ominously short of objective.

Overarching these details, to identify the $380 million as "philanthropic gifts" is seriously misleading; for example a large portion is for sponsored medical research, which is to say payment for work to be done. Significantly, the university made no announcement of total contributions for perpetual endowment -- the heart of Duke's enduring strength.

Rickards letter adds very important information to the Herald Sun’s story. It also raises serious issues which the University and Duke Endowment need to address.

Anyone using alumni annual giving as an indicator of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with President Brodhead and Board of Trustees Chair Robert Steel’s management of the University’s response to the obvious lies Crystal Mangum told and the terrible events that have followed them, should know this: Duke has carefully fed alums bafflegarb while telling them little or nothing about important matters which don’t reflect well on Brodhead and his administration.

So along with other alums, I’ve gotten letters and emails from Brodhead and Steel. They keep hitting the same themes. Things were tough but all is well now. Brodhead spoke up for the lacrosse players. Look to a bright Duke future under Dick’s leadership and move on.

Duke Magazine has been so "rah-rah Brodhead" it ought to be delivered with pom-poms.

But I’d ask my fellow alums if any of those emails or Duke Magazine has ever told them why Brodhead refused to meet with the lacrosse players’ parents when news of Mangum's lies first broke? Or why he continued to refuse to meet with them for many months thereafter?

For that matter, can any alum recall a Duke communication that's even mentioned Brodhead’s refusal?

I doubt if 5% of alums know Brodhead and the trustees said nothing when “activists” came on campus and circulated “Vigilante” posters which targeted 43 white students and added to the danger they were already facing.

Brodhead and Steel have never explained why they decided to say nothing when a Duke student, Reade Seligmann, was the target of death threats from members of the New Black Panthers Party and other racists. Or why they’ve said nothing since about their silence.

Who doubts that at least one reason Steel, Brodhead and the administration have worked so hard to, as one alum friend put it, “keep alums dumb” is their very reasonable calculation that if the alums knew more of what’s gone on at Duke, annual giving would drop significantly while a cry would go up for administrative and trustee changes?

If Duke alumni weren’t outraged once they really learned what the Brodhead/Steel leadership did and didn’t do following Mangum’s lies, what kind of people would they be?

There’s more I could say, but I’ll give other people a chance and “listen.”

Thursday, August 09, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Churchill was a gambler. And I don’t mean only that he often took huge political and government policy risks.

I mean he loved the casinos. There are many accounts of his spending most of the night at the casino tables in Nice, Cannes and Monte Carlo.

Here’s one of them. It was dictated by Churchill’s son, Randolph, and recorded and later published by Martin Gilbert in In Search of Churchill: A Historians Journey (John Wiley & Sons, 1994):

In 1935, while staying at the Chateau de l’Horizon in the South of France, I want one night with my father to the Casino in Cannes. By five in the morning I had won 200 (pounds) and my father 500 (pounds).

We left the casino, but could not find a taxi. “Let’s walk back along the beach, it is only four or five miles,” my father said, and off we went, reaching the Chateau at half past six.

My mother, who had never approved of my father’s gambling, was asleep. Father went into her bedroom, woke her up, and showered her bed with 1,000 franc notes. (p. 25)

Gilbert calculated the combined winnings of father and son were the 1994 equivalent of 18,000 pounds.

I don’t know how to convert that sum into a 2007 pounds equivalent, but I can tell you that at the current pounds to dollars exchange rate, it’s a bit more than $36,000.

In the post I asked questions of The Chronicle’s new editor, David Graham.

Graham’s response, which he labeled “off the record,” follows the post.

Since I’d never had any contact with Graham prior to our exchange, I sent him an email explaining why his “off the record” without prior discussion and agreement between us was problematic. That email follows Graham’s.

Readers Note: Trinity junior David Graham is the new editor of The Chronicle. In a recent article he introduced himself to the Duke community and outlined what he hopes The Chronicle will accomplish under his editorship. If you haven’t already done so, I hope you take a look at what Graham wrote.

I wish you well as you begin your editorship. The goals and Chronicle services you highlight are impressive and important for Duke. I support them with just a few exceptions.

I’ll share one of those exceptions with you now.

You say:

For those of us who write for The Chronicle, it was also a very exciting time, as we competed and rubbed elbows with top-notch reporters and got to follow a story of national interest. At the same time, it became almost a single focus for us, consuming much of our time and the pages of this paper.

But with Nifong out of office, charges dismissed and most of the loose ends of the case tied up, both Duke and The Chronicle are ready to move on.

Ready to move on?

The Chronicle? OK, you're the editor.

The Allen Building? For sure.

But Duke?

As the last academic year was ending, Duke students took ads in The Chronicle calling on the Group of 88 to explain why they did what they did and to apologize. About 1,000 students endorsed a full-page ad that asked President Brodhead to finally stand up for them.

I wonder whether many of those students weren’t thinking of things like Brodhead’s silence on May 18, 2006 when racists, including members of the New Black Panther’s Party who openly boast of carrying guns, shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann.

Brodhead has never explained why he didn’t speak out then and hasn’t since.

Has The Chronicle ever reported on Brodhead’s silence? Or the silence of all but a few faculty then and since? What about the silence of every trustee then and since? And then there's The Chronicle's own editorial silence.

We can agree, Editor Graham, there was a time many American universities abandoned their students when they were threatened by racists. But that stopped during the Civil Rights marches in the 60s.

Is there even one university which in the last 40 years has abandoned a student as Duke under Dick Brodhead abandoned Reade Seligmann on May 18, 2006?

If there is, how did that university "move on?"

Beginning on March 24, 2006 and for many days thereafter, the Durham Police repeatedly told the public about horrific crimes they said were committed at a party hosted by Duke students.

We don’t know why the police did that. We haven’t even identified and held accountable the police supervisors who approved the false statements the police spokesman was making.

We do know DPD’s repeated and shocking lies about Duke students stirred tensions and angers in the community, thus making Duke/Durham a more dangerous place. While that was true for all of us living here, it was and remains especially true for Duke students.

Shouldn't President Brodhead and "Dick's senior team" get some answers from DPD before they and The Chronicle decide "There's nothing to see here. Move on. Go back to your classrooms. If anything turns up, Sgt. Gottlieb will send us all an email?"

Editor Graham, I don't want this to get too long, so I'll move on now myself.

I look forward to your response, which I’ll publish in full at my blog. It's read by a good many members of the Duke community as well as some journalists and authors.

I’ll also be in touch in a week or so with other concerns generated by your column.

Again, good wishes.

Sincerely,

John in Carolinawww.johnincarolina.com

**********************************************************

GRAHAM’S RESPONSE

John,

[Off the record] I guess I'm curious as to what sort of response you wereseeking. I believe the coverage that we provide throughout the school year will speak for itself and would caution against any reading of the column that would suggest that we won't aggressively report on issues related to the case.

I hope you enjoy and are enlightened by it and imagine I'll be hearing from you about it as we go along.

Thanks,

DG-- David GrahamEditor, The ChroniclePresident, Duke Student Publishing Company

***************************************************************

MY RESPONSE TO GRAHAM

Dear Editor Graham:

Thank you for your prompt but problematic response.

Why did you lead with "off the record?"

We never agreed your response would be "off the record."

If bloggers and journalists went along with university administrators, faculty and others who began their responses with "off the record," what would happen to informative reporting?

I hope Chronicle staffers don't let administrators, faculty and others begin their responses with "off the record" and then treat the responses as such.

I hope you agree I shouldn't, either.

Because this is our first exchange, I'll delay publishing your response until 2 PM tomorrow so as to allow time to hear anything you feel I've not taken into account that I ought to have.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

************************************************************

Folks,

Graham is young, but not so young that as the editor-in-chief of a college newspaper he can’t be expected to know you don’t drop “off the record” before your answer and expect it to count for anything with reporters seeking information for their readers.

If that kind of “off the record” was allowed to count, journalists from the high school level on through the top ranks of the profession could regularly and easily be compromised with “information dumps.”

Yes, some of that goes on but people concerned with news reporting, be they advisors to high school newspapers or editors at major newspapers, fight it.

I was ready to see Graham’s “off the record” as what the Brits call a “one off.” I hoped he’d respond to my second email with something like: “Sorry. It was a busy day. Now on the record …..”

Graham’s initial “off the record” and his subsequent failure to respond are troubling.

I’m going to send Graham a link to this post. I hope he agrees that what I expected from him is no more than he expects from every Chronicle reporter and editor.

A magazine gets a hot story straight from a soldier in Iraq and publishes his writing, complete with gory details, under a pseudonym.

The stories are chilling: An Iraqi boy befriends American troops and later has his tongue cut out by insurgents. Soldiers mock a disfigured woman sitting near them in a dining hall. As a diversion, soldiers run over dogs with armored personnel carriers.

Compelling stuff, and, according to the Army, not true.

Three articles by the soldier have run since January in The New Republic, a liberal magazine with a small circulation owned by Canadian company CanWest Corp.

The stories, which ran under the name "Scott Thomas," were called into question by The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine with a small circulation owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

A recent series post reported the decision of England’s curriculum authority to drop Churchill from the list of historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools.

The Churchill Center, an organization based in Washington and dedicated to promoting Churchill schorarship and public awareness of his contributions to free society issued a press release concerning the decision. Excerpts follow:

Considerable misinformation attended a recent announcement that Churchill, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler and Martin Luther King, were deleted from a suggested list of historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools.

The story would be disturbing if accepted at face value. The facts are more complex.

In the past, England's curriculum authority has not only specified subjects to be taught, but has issued detailed instructions. The new policy frees teachers from those instructions.

Both World Wars remain compulsory in English secondary schools. To cover them without covering Churchill would be impossible.

"It is just conceivable that behind this lies the notion that 'great personages' can be taken out of history, which would certainly be a mistake," states Professor Paul Addison of the University of Edinburgh, a Churchill Centre academic adviser and author of two books on Churchill. "But the rest of Churchill's life has never been on the curriculum at all. If it were, it would demonstrate among other things the power of the media to distort the record—with Churchill as one of the main victims."

Sir Martin Gilbert, another Churchill Centre adviser and Churchill's official biographer, adds: "Paul Addison and I have long believed that there was more to Churchill than World War II (important though the war years are in his life and achievement). Both of us have written about many other aspects and periods of his long career. It would be good if the whole of Churchill's story could be taught. Perhaps it is, in different parts of the curriculum."

The Churchill Centre believes there is no anti-Churchill intent behind these changes, any more than an anti-Gandhi intent.

England has had an over-centralized system, giving teachers far too many instructions and trying to dictate the content of every hour of the school day. In the information age, the practice was too limiting.

Today, young people curious about why China, Russia, Britain and France are permanent Security Council members, but not Japan, India, Brazil and Germany; or why Israel is at such pains to defend itself; or how Ireland won freedom; or why the Middle East is what it is, and the borders of Iraq what they are; or where the Union of South Africa came from, will inevitably encounter Winston Churchill.

In the next few weeks I’ll be saying more about the curriculum authority’s decision as well as the teaching of history in America. Most of what I post won’t be part of the series but I’ll give notice here when I do.

In a post the other day linking to one of his columns, I said Michael Barone is one of my favorite pundits.

An Anon commenter said he/she thought Barone was the best pundit in America.

I think the Anon is an informed judge, but I can’t fully agree Barone’s “the best.”

I’ll tell you why in two words: Charles Krauthammer.

He’s at least as good as Barone.

Example:

On Fox News with Brit Hume tonight, Krauthammer provided commentary on the launch of Endeavour.

With liftoff only a few minutes away, he was prompted with questions about “NASA’s recent troubles” and “reports of drinking by astronauts” while on screen the camera was close-up on the space shuttle.

Krauthammer ignored the questions.

He spoke instead about what a marvelous creation the shuttle is, while noting it had aged and needed replacement.

He called attention to the skill and bravery of the astronauts about to launch. He mentioned the shuttle and space station have not lived up to expectations for what they’d help us learn.

As for what astronauts think as liftoff approaches, he recalled the astronaut (I didn’t catch the name) who’d told him that just before liftoff he sat in the capsule thinking: “Every piece of this was built by the lowest bidder.”

Krauthammer reminded us that we’ve grown accustomed to the launches. That’s dulled us to “what spectacular achievements they are.”

About 10 minutes later, with Endeavour now 400 miles down range and the camera close in on the shuttle, he spoke again of what an awesome, complicated, dangerous and inspiring event we were watching.

He told viewers there are plans for shuttle launches during the next three years, after which the program will be ended.

“Everyone ought to see a launch,” Krauthammer said. “The ground actually shakes beneath you. You feel only pride and admiration for those who put it together and those who are riding on it.”

The 1927 Yankees were lucky to have Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Americans are lucky to have Barone and Krauthammer.

We’re also lucky to have Fox News with Brit Hume. It’s very good on it’s “own legs;” besides regularly bringing us Krauthammer and, occasionally, Barone.

The networks wouldn’t do that. They know how vapid Katie Couric and Brian Williams appear now. They’d never put them on beside Krauthammer and Barone.

Some folks were dissatisfied with what Nifong said. They feel he should have said more about what he did wrong. Others wonder why the attorneys for David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann accepted his apology and agreed to drop their request that he reimburse them for the time they’ve spent preparing for the criminal contempt hearing.

I can understand why Nifong isn’t more forthcoming now about what he did wrong. If there’s a criminal investigation into his conduct (as there should be), his knowledge of what he did wrong will be a useful “bargaining chip” should investigators believe they have grounds to recommend his prosecution.

Any sensible person in Nifong’s situation wants to be able at the right time to possibly trade information and cooperation for leniency.

Something else: he was not in court on July 26 as a prosecutor and officer of the court. He’s been removed from office and disbarred. He was there as a defendant and private citizen.

I hope there comes a day when we can reasonably expect from Nifong full disclosure along with an apology.

Nifong’s July 26 apology is, I think, one of the few things he’s done in connection with the Hoax case that’s in his own best short- and long-term interests.

Short-term it appears to have reduced the anger directed toward him by North Carolina’s public. It’s likely also done some of that with the people he’s most harmed – the players and their families.

And to some he appears less haughty and more sympathetic. That’s always good for defendants.

As to the defense attorneys accepting his apology and agreeing to waive their request for reimbursement, I think they were looking past July 26 and had a long-term goal in mind.

You all know that when you’re trying to negotiate a hostage release, you don’t begin by demanding the release. You try to start working back-and-forth with the hostage taker(s), first about something small and easily done. You want reasonableness and cooperation.

“We can send in food.”

“OK, hostage-taker, I’ve got you down for a tuna sandwich. Is that on rye?”

Excepting those who conspired with him, it’s in everyone’s interest – Nifong’s, the players’, their families’, the public’s, - for Nifong to be reasonable and cooperative.

It’s a safe bet one thing the attorneys were doing on July 26 was something like saying: “Is that on rye?”

Stith was the first of several [Durham City] council members to mention threats made by a gang member sentenced to life in prison for murder last week.

Tyrone Dean told jurors who convicted him that he would have people follow them home to retaliate for their verdict.

Stith said he has heard from people with "a real concern and real level of fear" that the threat was not idle. Chalmers didn't offer specifics but said, "We will be looking at individuals, and there will be consequences. […]

"What I'm fearful of is if something happens to one of our jurors, what kind of message would that send to people who are asked to serve on any jury, but particularly those involving gangs?" council member Eugene Brown said.[…]

Gang violence is a major problem in Durham. Gang-related crimes are growing in number and boldness. Shootings are committed in broad daylight and near schools and shopping areas.

The cops on the street will tell you they’re now battling gangs that are larger and better organized for crime than a year ago.

With all that in mind I recalled a Johnsville News post from October 3, 2006 which began:

Street gangs or gang-rape, which one should be the real issue in the November election for Durham district attorney?

Durham has a growing gang problem, but the November 7th election is a referendum on Mike Nifong and his prosecution of three innocent Duke lacrosse players. The street gang problem is being ignored in favor of focusing on a racially charged rape hoax. That's too bad for Durham, which could use a full debate about solutions to its gang, gun, and drug problems.

That Johnsville News post, Durham’s Gangland , is the best piece of news reporting and commentary on Durham’s gang problems I’ve ever read.

It’s informed and detailed. It reminds you of the kind of reports top-notch “crusading” newspapers do to inform their communities about major problems that are not getting the attention they deserve.

Johnsville makes clear that at the start of 2006 Nifong thought the May Democratic primary campaign would focus on gang problems. That would force the DA’s office to be very active in prosecuting gang-related crime. It would also focus public attention on gang problems and ask voters to decide whether Nifong or his primary opponent, Freda Black, would make a better “gang-fighting DA.”

But that all went by the boards when Nifong decided to frame three white Duke students rather than take on gang-related crime.

People are right. Nifong's legacy includes diminished public confidence in our justice system. Also, he's made things more difficult for actual rape victims.

And then there’s Durham’s growing gang-violence: that, too, is part of Nifong’s legacy.

Readers Note: Yesterday I posted asking “ Will N&O public editor Ted Vaden answer any of the following seven questions?"

Vaden has responded.

What follows is first the email I sent Vaden which you can skip, read or use for reference as you think best.

My email ends at the double star line, after which Vaden’s response in full begins.

In cases such as this, I leave the response up for at least a day before I respond. That's to give readers a chance to look at what the responder said without my jumping right in.

I plan to respond to Vaden in a day or two. In the meantime, I've thanked him for the promptness of his response.

Readers are welcome to have their say right off, so long as they observe the rules.

Almost everyone who comments here does. The few who don’t are deleted.

The most important rules: Be civil. Be fact-based. No ad hominems.

Thank you.

John ___________________________________________

Dear Ted:

As you know, on April 12, 2007, the day after the Attorney General had declared the three young men innocent, the N&O for the first time reported that during her interview with the N&O on March 24, 2006, Crystal Mangum” said the second dancer was also sexually assaulted at the party but didn't report it for fear of losing her job. Also, Mangum said the second dancer “would do anything for money.” And more the N&O didn't report.

2) Why did the N&O for thirteen months withhold from readers and other news organizations crucially important news the public should have had, and which was so exculpatory for three young men the N&O must have realized very early on were being framed?

3) When did you first learn of your paper’s news suppression and its cover-up of same; and what did you do about what you'd learned?

4) You’ve so far failed to comment publicly on what the N&O did. Why is that?

5) When can readers expect you to comment publicly on what the N&O did?

6) Does the N&O intend to apologize to the three young men, their families, its readers, other news organizatons and the community for what it did beginning on March 25, 2006, and for thirteen months thereafter?

Most people I talk to, including journalists, think an apology is the least the N&O should do.

Thank you for your attention to these questions. I’ll publish your answers in full at my blog.

I first knew the content of the other comments made by the accuser when I read them in the article of April 12, 2007, that you refer to in your post. When I interviewed The N&O's editors shortly after the March 25, 2006, interview story was published, I was told that the story was limited to comments supported by information in the public record, i.e, police reports or court records. The allegations about the other dancer were not in the public record.

I do not know if The N&O intends to publish an apology. As public editor, I would not be involved in that decision. Ruth Sheehan, as you know, did write a column apologizing to the lacrosse players.

I have commented publicly about The N&O's coverage of the lacrosse case in at least five columns in the year after the story was first reported, most recently in an April 15, 2007, column assessing the coverage.

You can find it at http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/vaden/2007/story/564152.html

That's the title of an op-ed in The Guardian yesterday, August 6. It's sub-head:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered for the suffering which was brought to an end

The op-ed by Oliver Kamm, author of Anti-Totalitarianism: the Left-Wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy, is a "must read" and "clip and save." It begins:

Today is Hiroshima day, the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb.

As the wartime generation passes on, our sense of gratitude is increasingly mixed with unease regarding one theatre of the second world war. There is a widespread conviction that, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America committed acts that were not only terrible but also wrong.

Disarmament campaigners are not slow to advance further charges. Greenpeace maintains that a different American approach might have prevented the cold war, and argues that new research on the Hiroshima decision "should give us pause for thought about the wisdom of current US and UK nuclear weapons developments, strategies, operational policies and deployments".

This alternative history is devoid of merit.

New historical research in fact lends powerful support to the traditionalist interpretation of the decision to drop the bomb. This conclusion may surprise Guardian readers. The so-called revisionist interpretation of the bomb made headway from the 1960s to the 1990s.

It argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less the concluding acts of the Pacific war than the opening acts of the cold war. Japan was already on the verge of surrender; the decision to drop the bomb was taken primarily to gain diplomatic advantage against the Soviet Union.

Yet there is no evidence that any American diplomat warned a Soviet counterpart in 1945-46 to watch out because America had the bomb. The decision to drop the bomb was founded on the conviction that a blockade and invasion of Japan would cause massive casualties. Estimates derived from intelligence about Japan's military deployments projected hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Truman had to take account of this, and dropped the bomb for the reasons he said at the time. Contrary to popular myth, there is no documentary evidence that his military commanders advised him the bomb was unnecessary for Japan was about to surrender.

As the historian Wilson Miscamble puts it, Truman "hoped that the bombs would end the war and secure peace with the fewest American casualties, and so they did. Surely he took the action any American president would have undertaken."

Recent Japanese scholarship provides support for this position. Sadao Asada, of Doshisha University, Kyoto, has concluded from analysis of Japanese primary sources that the two bombs enabled the "peace party" within Japan's cabinet to prevail.

I can’t be sure when and where I first heard the name of France’s current President, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Thinking back, it must have been sometime in the 90s in France. I’m pretty sure my impression was positive.

Then came early 2003 and France’s effort to prop up Saddam while undermining our diplomatic efforts to get him to go into a luxury exile.

Anti-Americanism was popular among French politicians. President Chirac went out of his way to denigrate America and our allies.

Most French politicians followed Chirac’s lead. Almost all the French media and a good deal of the MSM here cheered them on. Sarkozy stood apart.

I appreciated that.

A few years later, when riots broke out in Paris and other French cities, the leftist French press found many reasons for them.

Sarkozy found one they’d overlooked: the rioters.

When he ran for President, Sarkozy made no secret of his admiration for this country. Mon dieu!

Now we read:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy lost his temper with two American news photographers covering his vacation Sunday, jumping onto their boat and scolding (sic) them loudly in French.

The confrontation came Sunday afternoon as Sarkozy and companions were headed for open water in a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee when he spotted Associated Press photographer Jim Cole and freelancer Vince DeWitt aboard Cole's boat, which was outside a buoy barrier monitored by the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. [. . .]

Hours earlier, Sarkozy had spoken to reporters and said in French, "I am naturally ready to answer all your questions, and maybe afterward you will resume covering the news and other topics, and leave me tranquilly with my family."

An AP reporter taped Sarkozy's remarks and had them translated, but the photographers did not hear the translation until after the altercation.

After Cole and DeWitt promised to stop shooting photos for the day, Sarkozy calmed down, reboarded his boat and continued out onto the lake with his party, followed by a boat carrying U.S. Secret Service agents.

The French government in Paris had no immediate comment.

Sarkozy and his family have been vacationing at a lakefront estate in Wolfeboro owned by former Microsoft Corp. executive Michael Appe. The president was previously photographed relaxing dockside in his swim trunks.

You’ve got to know I was disposed to like Sarkozy before the incident with the bothersome photographers.

Now I’m more so disposed.

Sarkozy had spent some of a vacation day giving the press “a story and photo op.” He asked to be left alone for the rest of the day.

Who wants camaras pointed at them all day, especially when they’re on vacation?

These photographers weren’t “recording history” or engaged on behalf of “the public’s right to know.”

They were trying to make money at the expense of Sarkozy's privacy. If he had tripped, patted someone on the bottom or opened a beer can, they'd have "caught it" and their day would have been made.

But I should tell you that from what other N&O readers tell me and from my own experience, Vaden is one public editor who often doesn’t respond to readers, even when their questions are important, fair and fact-based.

John_____________________________________________

Dear Ted:

As you know, on April 12, 2007, the day after the Attorney General had declared the three young men innocent, the N&O for the first time reported that during her interview with the N&O on March 24, 2006, Crystal Mangum” said the second dancer was also sexually assaulted at the party but didn't report it for fear of losing her job. Also, Mangum said the second dancer “would do anything for money.” And more the N&O didn't report.

2) Why did the N&O for thirteen months withhold from readers and other news organizations crucially important news the public should have had, and which was so exculpatory for three young men the N&O must have realized very early on were being framed?

3) When did you first learn of your paper’s news suppression and its cover-up of same; and what did you do about what you'd learned?

4) You’ve so far failed to comment publicly on what the N&O did. Why is that?

5) When can readers expect you to comment publicly on what the N&O did?

6) Does the N&O intend to apologize to the three young men, their families, its readers, other news organizatons and the community for what it did beginning on March 25, 2006, and for thirteen months thereafter?

Most people I talk to, including journalists, think an apology is the least the N&O should do.

Thank you for your attention to these questions. I’ll publish your answers in full at my blog.

I’m continuing a trial to see whether responding to your comments in the form below allows me to respond to more comments with the time I have.

I read all comments. If your comment isn’t specifically noted, it may be because I’ve noted the matter elsewhere, the matter is too complex for a brief answer, it’s some nice words which I appreciate but don’t need to comment on, etc.

Today I’m responding to comments or parts thereof on the threads of posts from 7/22 to 7/26.

I wondered why Duke settled so quickly without any extended negotiations.

( It may be that at least one factor in Duke’s quick settlement of the lawsuits was that it may have violated FERPA laws. At this point we don’t know.

I hope the Whichard Committee’s work brings us closer to an answer, but I think what we’ll really need to find out what Duke did are state and federal investigations.

I’m sorry to think that’s the case. )

[Duke] now appears to be an incredibly dirty, corrupt organization. I cannot imagine paying to send students into that cesspool.

( There’s a great deal that’s good at Duke. That said, it’s astounding the trustees and senior administrators have let things get to the point they’re at.

There’s silence when racists shout death threats at a student; silence when a rogue DA attempts to frame students; and silence when the police tell lies about what happened at a student-hosted party and thereby inflame community feeling against the students.

KC Johnson’s series on the scholarship of some Group of 88 members has been a shocker even for those of us who’ve been concerned that in recent years A&S faculty hiring and promotion appears to have involved cases where ideology trumped scholarship.

There are very serious questions still unanswered regarding possible FERPA violations. No one has yet said where the funds came from to pay for the now discredited “Listening” ad.

And there's more. )

It is worth noting the True Believer Syndrome, and in their conviction that they are right they proceed right ahead without regard for niceties deemed irrelevant.

Without taking a final stand one way or the other, I just have a lot of trouble believing so many at Duke, even those who are primarily ideology-driven, could have fallen for the obvious lies Mangum was telling. )

It's amazing (to me, anyway) that the DPD interviewed Moneta at all given that they failed to interview so many other people surrounding the case.

(Good point. )

Why would they interview Moneta about internal Duke conversations? What bearing would that have on the "investigation"?

( Great question. Here’s an example that isn’t, so far as I know, actual but gets at answering your question: “Mr. Moneta, has any senior Duke administrator or the university counsel expressed to you any concerns about how we’re treating students?” )

Did anybody ever figure out who created the vigilante poster?? I'd like to know. Sorry that this is off topic

It seems the more light you shine on Duke, the more putrid the odor emanating from the administration.

( It gives me no pleasure to have to agree with you. I think what best indicates how awful the administrations Duke Hoax response has been is the fact that it really can’t talk about so much of what it did.

Have you met a senior administrator or trustee yet whose said something like: “Oh sure, I’ll be happy to tell you why President Brodhead refused to meet with the lacrosse parents for many months. The reason is ……… ?”

Or how about: “I’ve no problem explaining why President Brodhead said nothing when they circulated the “Vigilante” and “Wanted” posters on campus. We talked about it at great length, You see, what we said to each other was ……?” )

Could not agree with you more. As an alumnus, I am more distressed each day with the (in)actions of Brodhead, the administration, and the BOT to not at least say "We're sorry", and to address the deplorable behavior of the "88."

( A year ago I wouldn’t have said what I’m about to say, and you all may think I’m the last one to start figuring things out, but I’m coming to believe an important reason Brodhead hasn’t deplored the behavior of the “88” is because he doesn’t share the view that it was deplorable for faculty members to publish that ad at a time when any sensible people knew it would make an already dangerous situation more dangerous. )

The hope for Duke lies within its own walls. Professor James Coleman for President.

( On another thread someone asked why a parent would by $30K per year to send a son or daughter to Duke with the way things are there now. A commenter on this thread noted the cost was closer to $46K but added: “your question still stands.”

Worth noting and much to the credit of Duke is its policy of full need-based financial assistance. I think it’s one of only about 20 colleges and universities in the country that have such a policy. )

When I went to Pressler's book signing at the Regulator [bookstore near Duke,] one older gentleman got up and remarked that he had spent 40 years as an archivist at Duke Library. He then went on to remark that Duke never ever apologizes for anything.

( I don’t know enough to affirm or dispute that, but I hope it’s not true.

All people and institutions make mistakes. And the best ones are usually the quickest to recognize them, admit them, make apologies as necessary and fix, in so far as they can, what was wrong. )

Brodhead and [Trustee Chair Robert] Steele are using Alumni contributions to pay off the lawsuits! PLEASE, can't somebody do something about that? It would seem to me to be a misuse of the funds which were generously provided to Duke for educational purposes, NOT to pay for administration's misdeeds.

( I agree absolutely. In just three years, Brodhead’s already the most costly president Duke’s ever had. )

[ Would] just one or more Lacrosse players please NOT take the money and settle??? Just please, somebody, take them to court for the sake of all the people who have suffered so much and for those who have borne the heat of the battle day after day in support of the innocent.

( I’m told by attorneys there are people with reasonable claims against Duke who can still bring suit. Also, in civil suits against other individuals and agencies, we may learn more about Duke’s role in the Hoax.

There’s also the Whichard Committee and possibly state and federal investigations that will tell us much.

And this: I’ve not talked to KC Johnson about the book he’s co-authoring with Stuart Taylor. But just about all the advanced reviews I’ve read reference what the reviews say is the extensive documentation Johnson/Taylor provide about Duke’s role.

Easy prediction: A year from now we’ll know a great deal more than we do now about Duke’s role in the Hoax; and most of it won’t reflect well on Duke.

Folks, be persistent in demanding the media do more reporting, continue to demand investigations of the attempted frame-up, and the on-going cover-up of that frame-up.

At the same time that you’re persisting and supporting others who are doing likewise, remember to be patient.

It will take great effort, even risks, but there is a lot more we are going to learn about a series of conspiracies that led to massive injustices and tell us much about Duke/Durham and America. )

I think the "Dinner with Dick" tour is over, and won't be repeated. In Philadelphia, his reception was decidedly mixed, with the only audience applause coming in reference to questions as to why Kim Curtis was still on the faculty, and why he wouldn't meet with the lacrosse families. (He didn't answer either question.) I doubt he will expose himself to to such questions anytime soon.

( I’m right with you. And I’ll bet you and people who’ve looked at those advanced reviews of the Johnson/Taylor book will agree that he’s not likely to go on any dinner/Q&A tours once the book is released. )

We hear a lot of whining about the partisan politics of Washington. Our system was designed for partisan politics where political philosophies can be debated in a civil fashion. The whining should be about the lack of civility. I believe the civility level among the democrats is significantly lower than that of the republicans. At the same time, I think that republicans seem to consciously avoid the many opportunities to show how they differ from the democrats--and those differences seem to diminish daily.

( Folks, in the “racial slurs” post I noted that N&O reporter Anne Blythe, who along with Samiha Khanna, was bylined on the N&O’s biased and racially inflammatory March 24 and 25, 2006 Duke lacrosse stories, was wrong when she recently reported:

Defense lawyers have said the players scattered in the wee hours of the morning after the team party because the second escort service dancer threatened to call police about racial slurs uttered by partygoers.

I sent an email to Blythe asking for a correction and offering to post any response she made. )

John: Please do not hold your breath waiting for a reply.

( I never hold my breath in such cases but I always appreciate thoughtful readers who remind me not to. I think of it as a way we keep in touch. Thanks. )

I have written to her before, but she does not respond. My emails are not nasty, but, nonetheless, do point out her nefarious role in the Hoax.

( Blythe is not the only one at the N&O who does not respond. The same is true at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog where most readers have stopped commenting which seems to be fine with the editors. )

Although I don't believe you will receive a response, I suspect your inquiry is a source of continuing irritation to Anne.

That alone makes it worthwhile.

( I’ve heard from folks I know at the N&O and journalists elsewhere that my fact-based posts are very irritating to many at the N&O.

That doesn’t give me any pleasure. I wish the N&O would examine what I say, correct me when I’m wrong and correct themselves when they’re wrong.

One plus with posts like the “racial slurs” is that you folks see it and it remains on the net for others to see in the future.

That's very helpful in letting people know about the N&O is like. )

[ For the N&O] "’Sorry’ Seems To Be The Hardest Word"

( That’s so true )

Has Editor Sill ever apologized for the inflammatory story in late March 2006 by the N&O's Khanna and Blythe? This story appeared to ignite the Nifong/Durham police frame of the lacrosse players.

( I think you’re referring to the now discredited March 25, 2006 “anonymous interview” story from which the N&O withheld the crucially important and exculpatory for the players news that Mangum had said the second dancer was also sexually assaulted and would “do anything for money.” Also, it was in that story that the N&O withheld news of the players cooperation and instead promulgated the lie that they were not cooperating with police.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, I plan to ask the N&O public editor whether Sill, on behalf of the N&O has apologized for the story. )

I consider Nifong's apology very mild.. Again, he tried to make us believe that he did not have all the information , therefore he decided to indict the three young men. Actually, he was motivated by political ambitions and he desperately needed the black vote - this was the real reason he went after innocent people.

Also, nowhere in his statement does he acknowledge that he hid the exculpatory evidence. The DPD should also be carefully investigated. As John mentioned, it is only in a totalitarian state that the police follow the orders of the prosecutor, always a political appointee and not an elected one.

( Everything you say is reasonable and a good reminder that I need to post further on Nifong’s apology. )

Folks, that’s it for now. I’ll try to be back tomorrow in “catch-up” mode covering more posts.

I’d like to get to a point at which I’m responding within a day or two of the comment’s posting.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Readers Note: Trinity junior David Graham is the new editor of The Chronicle, In a recent article he introduced himself to the Duke community and outlined what he hopes The Chronicle will accomplish under his editorship. I you haven’t already done so, I hope you take a look at what Graham wrote.

I wish you well as you begin your editorship. The goals and Chronicle services you highlight are impressive and important for Duke. I support them with just a few exceptions.

I’ll share one of those exceptions with you now.

You say:

For those of us who write for The Chronicle, it was also a very exciting time, as we competed and rubbed elbows with top-notch reporters and got to follow a story of national interest. At the same time, it became almost a single focus for us, consuming much of our time and the pages of this paper.

But with Nifong out of office, charges dismissed and most of the loose ends of the case tied up, both Duke and The Chronicle are ready to move on.

Ready to move on?

The Chronicle? OK, you're the editor.

The Allen Building? For sure.

But Duke?

As the last academic year was ending, Duke students took ads in The Chronicle calling on the Group of 88 to explain why they did what they did and to apologize. About 1,000 students endorsed a full-page ad that asked President Brodhead to finally stand up for them.

I wonder whether many of those students weren’t thinking of things like Brodhead’s silence on May 18, 2006 when racists, including members of the New Black Panther’s Party who openly boast of carrying guns, shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann.

Brodhead has never explained why he didn’t speak out then and hasn’t since.

Has The Chronicle ever reported on Brodhead’s silence? Or the silence of all but a few faculty then and since? What about the silence of every trustee then and since? And then there's The Chronicle's own editorial silence.

We can agree, Editor Graham, there was a time many American universities abandoned their students when they were threated by racists. But that stopped during the Civil Rights marches in the 60s.

Is there even one university which in the last 40 years has abandoned a student as Duke under Dick Brodhead abandoned Reade Seligmann on May 18, 2006?

If there is, how did that university "move on?"

Beginning on March 24, 2006 and for many days thereafter, the Durham Police repeatedly told the public about horrific crimes they said were committed at a party hosted by Duke students.

We don’t know why the police did that? We haven’t even identified and held accountable the police supervisors who approved the false statements the police spokesman was making.

We do know DPD’s repeated and shocking lies about Duke students stirred tensions and angers in the community, thus making Duke/Durham a more dangerous place. While that was true for all of us living here, it was and remains especially true for Duke students.

Shouldn't President Brodhead and "Dick's senior team" get some answers from DPD before they and The Chronicle decide "There's nothing to see here. Move on. Go back to your classrooms. If anything turns up, Sgt. Gottlieb will send us all an email?"

Editor Graham, I don't want this to get too long, so I'll move on now myself.

I look forward to your response, which I’ll publish in full at my blog. It's read by a good many members of the Duke community as well as some journalists and authors.

I’ll also be in touch in a week or so with other concerns generated by your column.

Sheehan later apologized in a column she said she hoped would be her last on the Duke Hoax.

I admired Sheehan for her apology; and thought she was smart to "exit" the Hoax case on a graceful note.

But this past Monday, Sheehan was back writing about the case.

She told readers Duke Senior Vice President John Burness drove her past the house on N. Buchanan Blvd. where the party was held. They both sighed, according to Sheehan, and Burness expressed regret Duke hadn't years ago taken his advice to purchase the house, renovate it and sell it to a "first-time homebuyer." If Duke had done that the "Duke lacrosse case might never have happened."

I really thought you were going to tell readers John Burness pulled the car into the driveway beside the house and the two of you got out so you could enter the house and inspect that bathroom where Crystal Mangum claimed it all happened.

But you and Burness cruised right past the house.

You didn't say whether the two of you discussed stopping so that you could finally tell readers something first-hand about the bathroom instead of, as you disclosed in It's Not About the Truth relying on what Mike Nifong told journalists at the N&O who then passed on to you the "material" you used for your "Teams Silence is Sickening" column (See posts here and here).

Surely you must have thought about asking Burness to stop and let you have a look in the bathroom. That would be a legitimate news requests.

The N&O works very hard to show readers pictures of alleged and actual crime scenes. The N&O typically describes the scenes in great text detail. Often you include a map of the scene.

Did you ask Burness to stop? If yes, what did he say?

If not, why not?

For some reason the N&O has never shown pictures of the bathroom, published its dimensions or a photo with four good sized people all squeezed in there.

Why not?

People who've been in the bathroom say if the public could see how small it is, they'd know there was no why Mangum could've fought a 30 minute brutal battle with three big athletes in there and then emerge without a sprain or a cut requiring even one stitch.

The N&O published a picture of the anonymous "Vigilante" poster after Duke said doing so would add to the danger the players were already facing.

You published the tax value of Reade Seligmann's parents' home and told us there was a Godiva Chocolate Shop in the town near where he went to high school.

So what's the problem with publishing a photo of the bathroom, preferably with four people in it and the door shut, which is how Mangum said things were that night of her "ordeal?"

You could accompany the photographer to the house and ask Burness and Duke's President Dick Brodhead and Mike Nifong to join you.

Then the photographer could take pictures of you, Burness, Brodhead and Nifong in the bathroom; and you could ask the three men to explain why they think news organizations have been so reluctant to report on the bathroom's size and when each of them first realized Mangum's story (stories really) was just what David Evans said it was: "fantastic lies."

You have quite an opportunity to educate the public about how news organizations actually work. It's also an opportunity to help people in Durham who genuinely wish to get along with each other better understand why Roy Cooper said, "innocent."

I hope you take advantage of the opportunity. It's the least you and the N&O owe the community.

I'll publish your response in full at my blog.

In closing, I hope your husband is continuing to make a good recovery from his recent open-heart surgery. From here on out, I hope the wind is always at his back.